First the environmentalists complain that we are paving the earth. Now they're complaining that grass threatens to run rampant over the planet, wreaking its revenge on asphalt and concrete everywhere.
Actually, a friend of mine tells stories about a McD's (I think) where they had an automated cashier service. They eventually got rid of it because too many old people were deathly afraid of it.
The automated cashiers at grocery stores are a great idea, too. The downside is that some of these systems are poorly executed. One system I've seen makes you bag up your groceries on a little platform that doubles as a scale, which attempts to ensure that you don't try to steal anything. But if in the process of ringing up your own order the platform fills up, you're screwed (or, at the very least, you have to end the order, pay, clear off the platform, and start again).
When they roll out RFIDs, though - *that's* when all those $6.15ers should start worrying. Right along with the rest of us.
I'm surprised nobody yet has mentioned how buggy this game was. Numerous crash bugs, as well as a tendency to thrust your character on the wrong side of the environment (e.g., walking on top of dungeon ceilings, falling through a wall and out into space), plagued this game.
Still, this is a nice gift to the community of TES supporters from Bethesda.:)
One of our local theaters has a small ATM-sized machine that dispenses tickets in exchange for credit card payments. I find it far easier to use this machine rather than waiting in line. Unfortunately, almost nobody seems to agree with me, so the theater hasn't bothered to repair it since it broke a long time ago.
This has less to do with game reviews and more to do with journalistic integrity. If a reviewer comes across a serious bug in a game - especially a console game for which a patch is unfeasible - one would think that such a bug would get mentioned in the review.
Now the question is, was the bug not mentioned because the reviewer didn't consider it to be important, or forgot about it, etc. (e.g., just crappy reporting)? Or was the reviewer under pressure or edited by his superiors so as not to report bugs in the article, due to the financial pressures (no free copies, etc.) that a large console game company could potentially exert on a small online review site (e.g., complete lack of journalistic integrity)?
The 3 other "obvious" emaples you cite are cheating - they circumvent the rules of the guessing competition. Why do you label the actions mentioned in the story as cheating? No rules have been circumvented. All that is being done is making use of the information which is available to everyone in a clever way.
Then they should be clever enough not to use electronic devices. If they can predict it by watching the ball and calculating the winning number in their heads, fine, they can play until the casino kicks them out. But using an external aid is most definitely cheating.
It's pointless to accuse the U.S. of hypocrisy in this matter, because every nation is hypocritical at one point or another. But because of a flamebait comment in the original submission, there is almost no legitimate discussion here of the merits of this ruling, and instead everyone is trying to make themselves seem morally superior by claiming hypocrisy in the actions of the U.S.
Do these people have the attention of legislators and governors? There are a lot of legislators who are keen on the idea of including a voter-verifiable paper trail, and several state governors have expressed concern as well with the voting systems that have debuted so far. This is (should be) as much a PR project as it is a coding project.
Give them a cut, give them the credit they're due, and everybody wins. Their move is based more around the harsh realities of our present-day overlitigious society, not around an interest in snuffing out everyone who's a fan of their product.
With more than one company providing relative performance indices as "names" for their processors, and none really providing a basis for these relative ratings, the consumer will now be forced to rely on product review sites like Tom's Hardware or Anandtech to evaluate the real performance of processors.
That's a good thing in as much as the numbers will stop meaning anything to those with the technical know-how to get useful information from Tom or Anand.
But there are a lot of Stupid People out there using and buying computers every day, and they will be completely in the dark when it comes to evaluating their choices. For them, the deciding factor when choosing a processor in their premanufactured desktop machine will be only what a further descent into Marketing can tell them....Which is probably exactly what Intel wants.
You might try contacting WGBH Boston about producing an episode of Nova that centers on ham radio. Most public TV stations don't have a lot in the way of funding, but WGBH seems to manage to put together some really nice shows. (Heck, John Lithgow narrates about half of them.)
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't find it yet. That was the original bill, and the bill got substituted a number of times to result in this bill being the one to be signed.
Isn't there some minor irony in ripping off someone else's DRM scheme?
First the environmentalists complain that we are paving the earth. Now they're complaining that grass threatens to run rampant over the planet, wreaking its revenge on asphalt and concrete everywhere.
Actually, Kimberly-Clark makes paper products under the Scott brand since 1995.
Technically, Breakeys also has the piece stats included on/in each piece.
You know, you'd think that a google search for "satan" wouldn't be all that helpful for us noobs. Guess I was wrong!
Actually, a friend of mine tells stories about a McD's (I think) where they had an automated cashier service. They eventually got rid of it because too many old people were deathly afraid of it.
The automated cashiers at grocery stores are a great idea, too. The downside is that some of these systems are poorly executed. One system I've seen makes you bag up your groceries on a little platform that doubles as a scale, which attempts to ensure that you don't try to steal anything. But if in the process of ringing up your own order the platform fills up, you're screwed (or, at the very least, you have to end the order, pay, clear off the platform, and start again).
When they roll out RFIDs, though - *that's* when all those $6.15ers should start worrying. Right along with the rest of us.
I'm surprised nobody yet has mentioned how buggy this game was. Numerous crash bugs, as well as a tendency to thrust your character on the wrong side of the environment (e.g., walking on top of dungeon ceilings, falling through a wall and out into space), plagued this game.
:)
Still, this is a nice gift to the community of TES supporters from Bethesda.
Long live direct current!
One of our local theaters has a small ATM-sized machine that dispenses tickets in exchange for credit card payments. I find it far easier to use this machine rather than waiting in line. Unfortunately, almost nobody seems to agree with me, so the theater hasn't bothered to repair it since it broke a long time ago.
On the other hand, shows like Teletubbies, Boohbah, and the Elmo's World segment of Sesame Street are like acid trips for kids.
Well, the good folks at Lawrence Livermore were already digitizing people and putting them inside the computer over twenty years ago. You'd think they'd have fusion licked by now.
This has less to do with game reviews and more to do with journalistic integrity. If a reviewer comes across a serious bug in a game - especially a console game for which a patch is unfeasible - one would think that such a bug would get mentioned in the review.
Now the question is, was the bug not mentioned because the reviewer didn't consider it to be important, or forgot about it, etc. (e.g., just crappy reporting)? Or was the reviewer under pressure or edited by his superiors so as not to report bugs in the article, due to the financial pressures (no free copies, etc.) that a large console game company could potentially exert on a small online review site (e.g., complete lack of journalistic integrity)?
The 3 other "obvious" emaples you cite are cheating - they circumvent the rules of the guessing competition. Why do you label the actions mentioned in the story as cheating? No rules have been circumvented. All that is being done is making use of the information which is available to everyone in a clever way.
Then they should be clever enough not to use electronic devices. If they can predict it by watching the ball and calculating the winning number in their heads, fine, they can play until the casino kicks them out. But using an external aid is most definitely cheating.
It's pointless to accuse the U.S. of hypocrisy in this matter, because every nation is hypocritical at one point or another. But because of a flamebait comment in the original submission, there is almost no legitimate discussion here of the merits of this ruling, and instead everyone is trying to make themselves seem morally superior by claiming hypocrisy in the actions of the U.S.
Seems like they would have to be running modified source, because 0.13 had commercial skipping as a menu option.
A little more disturbing is that they serve their own TV listings - the possibilities for ad injection abound.
Do these people have the attention of legislators and governors? There are a lot of legislators who are keen on the idea of including a voter-verifiable paper trail, and several state governors have expressed concern as well with the voting systems that have debuted so far. This is (should be) as much a PR project as it is a coding project.
I never thought I'd see the day that first person shooters would be more tolerant of social differences the the general U.S. population.
Well, a rocket launcher will gib you just the same no matter whether you're gay or straight.
We have no reason to believe that Kerry will support individual consumers over big business any more than the Bush administration has.
:p
If you really want meaningful consumer protection, vote for Nader.
Give them a cut, give them the credit they're due, and everybody wins. Their move is based more around the harsh realities of our present-day overlitigious society, not around an interest in snuffing out everyone who's a fan of their product.
I still have faith in the 0-day warez dudes.
The other 72% couldn't figure out how to use the online survey form.
With more than one company providing relative performance indices as "names" for their processors, and none really providing a basis for these relative ratings, the consumer will now be forced to rely on product review sites like Tom's Hardware or Anandtech to evaluate the real performance of processors.
...Which is probably exactly what Intel wants.
That's a good thing in as much as the numbers will stop meaning anything to those with the technical know-how to get useful information from Tom or Anand.
But there are a lot of Stupid People out there using and buying computers every day, and they will be completely in the dark when it comes to evaluating their choices. For them, the deciding factor when choosing a processor in their premanufactured desktop machine will be only what a further descent into Marketing can tell them.
You might try contacting WGBH Boston about producing an episode of Nova that centers on ham radio. Most public TV stations don't have a lot in the way of funding, but WGBH seems to manage to put together some really nice shows. (Heck, John Lithgow narrates about half of them.)
It's okay, your kids won't be doing much of anything while they're on this acid trip.